Yes! Google has already given their partners a public reassurance of their intentions for Android.
And each partner, in turn, has made a public response to their faith in Googles intentions...
Oddly, several companies made press release comments that were worded almost exactly the same...
Reminds one of the the talking points provided to the news outlets by the political parties...
But, I wonder why the public votes of confidence were made at all...
I have been observing large companies since 1958...
Almost, without exception, a company's public vote of confidence is soon followed by actions which indicate that they had no confidence at all -- they were just mouthing the words.
You can go way back to the public statement "I find no fault in this man..." Pontius Pilate.
Said another way, a public vote of confidence often precedes a public crucifixion.
Just an observation... No disrespect intended!
No problem, and I can't dispute the point that what a company says they are going to do and what they ultimately DO do are two separate things. However, I think it actually makes more sense for Google to use those patents as shields for their army than it does for them to actually enter the fray, not to mention perform fratricide. I had that opinion even BEFORE hearing any public statements on the topic. So in this case, their public statements totally dovetail with good business sense (setting aside that extreme cost). We shall see. Google may be naive and bold, in some ways, but they certainly aren't stupid, which is exactly what I think they would be if they really were intending on hurting their allies. All they have going for them right now is a semblance of strength in numbers. It could easily fall apart with any misstep.
Can you point to a section in the purchase agreement that says that Google gets to keep the cash? Oh, wait. You haven't seen the purchase agreement.
Typically, in an asset purchase acquisition like this, the selling company keeps the cash. Only in a stock purchase would the purchasing company normally get the cash.
You're a hostile little critter, aint ya.
To the best of my knowledge the purchasing company most often gets all of the assets of a company but, since you're not sure either, I'll let someone else answer that if they wouldn't mind (maybe Anantksundaram).
Reading Apple 2.0's bit on the long view by Horace Dediu @ ASYMCO, there seemed to be the thought that the deal doesn't stack up either as a patent buy, a manufacturing buy, or a combination of both.
Consider me an ignoramus, but what about the angle that Apple has been suing Manufacturers of Android devices but not Google directly. 2 things might now be said:
1) Google just bought their entry ticket into a courtroom by becoming a manufacturer, thus contributing their resources to the bigger fight.
2) Google is now on the hook for their manufacturer's violation of patents. (if any)
The first is positive, because it get's Google into the fight.
The second is negative, because it puts Google at risk.
Thoughts? I'm retarded, aren't I?
You are close, I think, but with the right patents in hand (e.g. 4G related) Google doesn't have to "become a manufacturer" to go after Apple's iOS. Their ultimate goal would be to carve out a dangerous enough claim to enter negotiations with Apple. And one of their demands might be, "drop those suits with our partners, and let's cross-license some stuff".
To that end, Google could either shut down the newly acquired handset business or use it as a concept demonstrator (like they attempted with the two Nexus handsets). They are NOT going to switch to the Apple model of building their own stuff and shutting down their partners.
Whether they will be successful is a different issue. I just don't believe that their true goal is to enter the handset manufacturing business and dominate.
Look for Google to sue Apple directly over some software related issue by Xmas.
Reading Apple 2.0's bit on the long view by Horace Dediu @ ASYMCO, there seemed to be the thought that the deal doesn't stack up either as a patent buy, a manufacturing buy, or a combination of both.
Consider me an ignoramus, but what about the angle that Apple has been suing Manufacturers of Android devices but not Google directly. 2 things might now be said:
1) Google just bought their entry ticket into a courtroom by becoming a manufacturer, thus contributing their resources to the bigger fight.
2) Google is now on the hook for their manufacturer's violation of patents. (if any)
The first is positive, because it get's Google into the fight.
The second is negative, because it puts Google at risk.
Thoughts? I'm retarded, aren't I?
Nope, you've got some valid points. Although the first is probably negative for Google and the second is definitely negative for Google.
There's wanting to get into a fight and then there's getting into a fight.
They did pay a 60%+ premium on an overvalued company that has never made a profit...
Speaking of overvalued companies, does Google make any profit? Totally ignorant question here. It just seems like their whole existence is one big spending spree and after paying their employees and other overhead, I don't see what they could have left.
Is ad revenue really that amazing? Their search engine is slowly becoming the spam ridden ghetto that Yahoo was in the late 90s, and the simple layout that made them likable has been long gone. Apple tends to do a few things, and do them well; Google has too much on the table to do much of anything right at this point. MS is going through the same thing, but with Wndows and Office to creating constant revenue, their worries have been limited.
Maybe. But Apple bought all these raw ideas and spent massive amounts of time and money to develop them to the point where they a) worked properly; b) were marketable: c) were affordable; and d) were profitable. Mr. Oppenheimer's comments are aimed at those who simply take someone else's ideas, without paying for them, and who don't develop them but simply copy them to make a profit for themselves.
This is why I absolutely hate software patents. Thee is no need for them. Even if you are given the idea it is still hard work to actually implement it. The patent is just the very first step in a long and usually expensive development process.
but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.
Says the CFO of the company:
- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea
- that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes
- that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea
- that didn't invent Coverflow
- that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS
- ...
- that didn't invent the rectangular format
all these idea's taken from others
Apple may not have invented many things (open for debate) but they surely were innovative enough to improve the design and function of the categories to make there products extremely successful in comparison to those you claim did.
overtakes, takeover, same diff. you know you fail at an argument when you start going into semantics.
you still haven't given a reasonable answer to the math i provided above.
Everyone is so touchy. I just provided some basic math.
Your question about whether I trust investors suggests you think you know something about investors. I suggest you are clueless on that topic and used your language as an example.
No one is being 'touchy'. A lot of the posters in this forum are pretty well-informed and knowledgable. Please think before you post.
Typically, in an asset purchase acquisition like this, the selling company keeps the cash. Only in a stock purchase would the purchasing company normally get the cash.
Where did you see that this was an asset (as opposed to equity) purchase agreement?
Nope, you've got some valid points. Although the first is probably negative for Google and the second is definitely negative for Google.
There's wanting to get into a fight and then there's getting into a fight.
I agree, I think this is an accident waiting to happen unless Google sell off the hardware and just keep the patents. This is Google we are talking about ... The Beta Kings ... dumping bit of software even if millions have become dependent on using it is nothing to them. Zero support on anything is par for the course ... all well and good with code I guess ... but hardware?
To the best of my knowledge the purchasing company most often gets all of the assets of a company but, since you're not sure either, I'll let someone else answer that if they wouldn't mind (maybe Anantksundaram).
I've been involved with dozens of acquisitions. In every single case (as is normal business practice), when a company sells its assets, cash is generally not included.
Now, it is POSSIBLE that they included the cash in this deal, but I haven't seen any reports that said so and since that is so different from standard practice, it probably would have been reported. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense - it creates extra work with no value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Where did you see that this was an asset (as opposed to equity) purchase agreement?
Purchases of this scale are almost always asset purchases when they involve only a portion of a major company. You generally only have equity purchases when you're taking over an entire enterprise - and even then it's often assets.
Speaking of overvalued companies, does Google make any profit? Totally ignorant question here. It just seems like their whole existence is one big spending spree and after paying their employees and other overhead, I don't see what they could have left.
Is ad revenue really that amazing? Their search engine is slowly becoming the spam ridden ghetto that Yahoo was in the late 90s, and the simple layout that made them likable has been long gone. Apple tends to do a few things, and do them well; Google has too much on the table to do much of anything right at this point. MS is going through the same thing, but with Wndows and Office to creating constant revenue, their worries have been limited.
ROTFLMAO. You really should make an effort to educate yourself on a topic before posting.
Yes, Google is making a profit. A HUGE profit. $2.5 Billion in the last quarter.
Where did you see that this was an asset (as opposed to equity) purchase agreement?
Just curious....
Wouldn't this have to be an asset purchase? I've not seen any mention of Google purchasing MMI's stock. If it is an asset purchase then it's a really expensive one and you'd think that at that price Google would want everything.
I guess time will tell.
[on edit: Google offered Motorola Mobility $40 per share... which most likely means an equity purchase... and, in that case, wouldn't Google get everything... debts, liabilities, assets, cash etc.? ]
Wouldn't this have to be an asset purchase? I've not seen any mention of Google purchasing MMI's stock. If it is an asset purchase then it's a really expensive one and you'd think that at that price Google would want everything.
I guess time will tell.
[on edit: Google offered Motorola Mobility $40 per share... which most likely means an equity purchase... and, in that case, wouldn't Google get everything... debts, liabilities, assets, cash etc.? ]
Yes, that's the way I understood several articles on the subject -- Google was buying MMI, warts and all, and MMI will no longer exist as an independent corporation after the deal is done.
An interesting side effect of the MMI purchase is the effect that it could have on the Oracle-Google litigation regarding Android. This was posted on Asymco:
Quote:
By: Steven Noyes
My only thought on the Oracle one (and to me, I would see Oracle seeing the new Googrola as a win. Google tried to claim that Android has $0 in value since it gives it away. Oracle can point to Google spending $12.5 billion to protect Android and Android has real monetary value to Google.
If the poster is correct, then Larry may have stepped in it and undermined his own defense -- and increased the $ amount of the damages, should they loose. AIR, trebel damages are being asked????
Can you point to a section in the purchase agreement that says that Google gets to keep the cash? Oh, wait. You haven't seen the purchase agreement.
Typically, in an asset purchase acquisition like this, the selling company keeps the cash. Only in a stock purchase would the purchasing company normally get the cash.
It definitely sounds like a stock (equity) purchase agreement.
Sure... there are a lot of things I don't understand; but in this clause...
SECTION 1.03. Effects of the Merger. The Merger shall have the effects set forth herein and in the applicable provisions of the Corporation Law. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, at the Effective Time, all the property, rights, privileges, powers and franchises of the Company and Merger Sub shall vest in the Surviving Corporation, and all debts, liabilities and duties of the Company and Merger Sub shall become the debts, liabilities and duties of the Surviving Corporation, all as provided under the applicable Laws of the State of Delaware.
[on edit: I'm assuming that all the property, rights, privileges, powers and franchises means that Google gets everything... including the cash ]
What some analysts view as unusual is Apple's relative aggressive pursuit of lawsuits, causing a spate of counter suits... a stirring up of the status quo balance and pace of legal contention. On any count, Apple has been more litigious than the mobile or PC space is accustomed.
Apple comes to the convergence between consumer electronics, IT/PC/networking, and mobile data communications as it universally adopts IP broadband as the common venue for products and software. The company has obvious strengths in software, human interface/software, OS development platforms, . Apple has held only a token number of patents and few of importance in wireless or wireless communications specific technologies until recently. Most of the recent bolstering of wireless IPR comes from acquisitions rather than internal development. The Nortel IPR acquisition, led by Apple, and a series of cross licensing with wireless industry titans, has helped Apples achieve a balance between their traditional forte and the wireless centered base of IPR.
Apple without wireless broadband (3.5G-4G) would not have displayed the innovation or explosion in growth. Other areas such as 'Cloud computing' (I prefer Cloud 4G or ICT), is becoming a major factor in Apple and many participants vision of the future. This too ids dependent on wireless connectivity to people. The Cloud without wireless is Steve Job's with a tin can (the iPod, iPad, iPhone) on a string.. Apple had the insights and skills needed to take advantage of WBB better than companies who previously dominated it. However, Apple's business formula participates, doesn't dominate.
I've been involved with dozens of acquisitions. In every single case (as is normal business practice), when a company sells its assets, cash is generally not included.
Well, I've been involved in literally hundreds of acquisitions, major ones I mean. Cash assets were in every case transfered, as is normal business practice in major acquisitions.
Now. it may be that you were involved in the acquisition of your local grocery store or bakery for which it is normal to leave the cash out of the deal.
Maybe I have too much time on my hands, but the Steven Noyes comment about the affect of the MMI acquisition on the Oracle-Google litigation got me thinking...
I think it is time to codify Google's attitude and actions regarding others' IP and technology in general.
Let's call it Googlelogic -- or the Mantra of Mountain View:
• You cannot sue me for what I steal from you because I give it away.
• Even if you sue and win, there should be no damages because what I give away has $0 value.
• I am willing so spend $ Billions to protect my right to give away something of $0 value.
I agree. I always point to Windows Phone 7. Rather than copy Apple's iPhone, they went in a similar direction, but really made it their own. It's not bad... Pretty good actually.
I don't dislike Android. It's a nice OS. I simply have a problem with how it came to be.
+++
WP7, and WebOS, are both based on the same idea, but had real innovation that made them different from iOS. It was too bad they entered very late in the game (otherwise they would have gotten the Verizon Droid push, that jumpstarted Android).
Google, OTOH, realized that the time needed to build something innovative might hurt them irreversibly, so they basically just ripped off iOS.
The NORTEL bid was actually $4.5 billion and pooled together by Apple, Microsoft, RIM, Sony, Ericsson and EMC. It's not clear though if they are paying out equal payments of $750 million each. They beat out Google's sole bid of $900 million.
Comments
Yes! Google has already given their partners a public reassurance of their intentions for Android.
And each partner, in turn, has made a public response to their faith in Googles intentions...
Oddly, several companies made press release comments that were worded almost exactly the same...
Reminds one of the the talking points provided to the news outlets by the political parties...
But, I wonder why the public votes of confidence were made at all...
I have been observing large companies since 1958...
Almost, without exception, a company's public vote of confidence is soon followed by actions which indicate that they had no confidence at all -- they were just mouthing the words.
You can go way back to the public statement "I find no fault in this man..." Pontius Pilate.
Said another way, a public vote of confidence often precedes a public crucifixion.
Just an observation... No disrespect intended!
No problem, and I can't dispute the point that what a company says they are going to do and what they ultimately DO do are two separate things. However, I think it actually makes more sense for Google to use those patents as shields for their army than it does for them to actually enter the fray, not to mention perform fratricide. I had that opinion even BEFORE hearing any public statements on the topic. So in this case, their public statements totally dovetail with good business sense (setting aside that extreme cost). We shall see. Google may be naive and bold, in some ways, but they certainly aren't stupid, which is exactly what I think they would be if they really were intending on hurting their allies. All they have going for them right now is a semblance of strength in numbers. It could easily fall apart with any misstep.
Thompson
Can you point to a section in the purchase agreement that says that Google gets to keep the cash? Oh, wait. You haven't seen the purchase agreement.
Typically, in an asset purchase acquisition like this, the selling company keeps the cash. Only in a stock purchase would the purchasing company normally get the cash.
You're a hostile little critter, aint ya.
To the best of my knowledge the purchasing company most often gets all of the assets of a company but, since you're not sure either, I'll let someone else answer that if they wouldn't mind (maybe Anantksundaram).
Reading Apple 2.0's bit on the long view by Horace Dediu @ ASYMCO, there seemed to be the thought that the deal doesn't stack up either as a patent buy, a manufacturing buy, or a combination of both.
Consider me an ignoramus, but what about the angle that Apple has been suing Manufacturers of Android devices but not Google directly. 2 things might now be said:
1) Google just bought their entry ticket into a courtroom by becoming a manufacturer, thus contributing their resources to the bigger fight.
2) Google is now on the hook for their manufacturer's violation of patents. (if any)
The first is positive, because it get's Google into the fight.
The second is negative, because it puts Google at risk.
Thoughts? I'm retarded, aren't I?
You are close, I think, but with the right patents in hand (e.g. 4G related) Google doesn't have to "become a manufacturer" to go after Apple's iOS. Their ultimate goal would be to carve out a dangerous enough claim to enter negotiations with Apple. And one of their demands might be, "drop those suits with our partners, and let's cross-license some stuff".
To that end, Google could either shut down the newly acquired handset business or use it as a concept demonstrator (like they attempted with the two Nexus handsets). They are NOT going to switch to the Apple model of building their own stuff and shutting down their partners.
Whether they will be successful is a different issue. I just don't believe that their true goal is to enter the handset manufacturing business and dominate.
Look for Google to sue Apple directly over some software related issue by Xmas.
Thompson
Reading Apple 2.0's bit on the long view by Horace Dediu @ ASYMCO, there seemed to be the thought that the deal doesn't stack up either as a patent buy, a manufacturing buy, or a combination of both.
Consider me an ignoramus, but what about the angle that Apple has been suing Manufacturers of Android devices but not Google directly. 2 things might now be said:
1) Google just bought their entry ticket into a courtroom by becoming a manufacturer, thus contributing their resources to the bigger fight.
2) Google is now on the hook for their manufacturer's violation of patents. (if any)
The first is positive, because it get's Google into the fight.
The second is negative, because it puts Google at risk.
Thoughts? I'm retarded, aren't I?
Nope, you've got some valid points. Although the first is probably negative for Google and the second is definitely negative for Google.
There's wanting to get into a fight and then there's getting into a fight.
They did pay a 60%+ premium on an overvalued company that has never made a profit...
Speaking of overvalued companies, does Google make any profit? Totally ignorant question here. It just seems like their whole existence is one big spending spree and after paying their employees and other overhead, I don't see what they could have left.
Is ad revenue really that amazing? Their search engine is slowly becoming the spam ridden ghetto that Yahoo was in the late 90s, and the simple layout that made them likable has been long gone. Apple tends to do a few things, and do them well; Google has too much on the table to do much of anything right at this point. MS is going through the same thing, but with Wndows and Office to creating constant revenue, their worries have been limited.
Maybe. But Apple bought all these raw ideas and spent massive amounts of time and money to develop them to the point where they a) worked properly; b) were marketable: c) were affordable; and d) were profitable. Mr. Oppenheimer's comments are aimed at those who simply take someone else's ideas, without paying for them, and who don't develop them but simply copy them to make a profit for themselves.
This is why I absolutely hate software patents. Thee is no need for them. Even if you are given the idea it is still hard work to actually implement it. The patent is just the very first step in a long and usually expensive development process.
but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.
Says the CFO of the company:
- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea
- that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes
- that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea
- that didn't invent Coverflow
- that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS
- ...
- that didn't invent the rectangular format
all these idea's taken from others
Apple may not have invented many things (open for debate) but they surely were innovative enough to improve the design and function of the categories to make there products extremely successful in comparison to those you claim did.
Hi Mr. Grammar Policeman.
overtakes, takeover, same diff. you know you fail at an argument when you start going into semantics.
you still haven't given a reasonable answer to the math i provided above.
Everyone is so touchy. I just provided some basic math.
Your question about whether I trust investors suggests you think you know something about investors. I suggest you are clueless on that topic and used your language as an example.
No one is being 'touchy'. A lot of the posters in this forum are pretty well-informed and knowledgable. Please think before you post.
Typically, in an asset purchase acquisition like this, the selling company keeps the cash. Only in a stock purchase would the purchasing company normally get the cash.
Where did you see that this was an asset (as opposed to equity) purchase agreement?
Just curious....
Nope, you've got some valid points. Although the first is probably negative for Google and the second is definitely negative for Google.
There's wanting to get into a fight and then there's getting into a fight.
I agree, I think this is an accident waiting to happen unless Google sell off the hardware and just keep the patents. This is Google we are talking about ... The Beta Kings ... dumping bit of software even if millions have become dependent on using it is nothing to them. Zero support on anything is par for the course ... all well and good with code I guess ... but hardware?
You're a hostile little critter, aint ya.
To the best of my knowledge the purchasing company most often gets all of the assets of a company but, since you're not sure either, I'll let someone else answer that if they wouldn't mind (maybe Anantksundaram).
I've been involved with dozens of acquisitions. In every single case (as is normal business practice), when a company sells its assets, cash is generally not included.
Now, it is POSSIBLE that they included the cash in this deal, but I haven't seen any reports that said so and since that is so different from standard practice, it probably would have been reported. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense - it creates extra work with no value.
Where did you see that this was an asset (as opposed to equity) purchase agreement?
Just curious....
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...ndroid-Assets-
"Google's purchase of Motorola Android assets "
Purchases of this scale are almost always asset purchases when they involve only a portion of a major company. You generally only have equity purchases when you're taking over an entire enterprise - and even then it's often assets.
Speaking of overvalued companies, does Google make any profit? Totally ignorant question here. It just seems like their whole existence is one big spending spree and after paying their employees and other overhead, I don't see what they could have left.
Is ad revenue really that amazing? Their search engine is slowly becoming the spam ridden ghetto that Yahoo was in the late 90s, and the simple layout that made them likable has been long gone. Apple tends to do a few things, and do them well; Google has too much on the table to do much of anything right at this point. MS is going through the same thing, but with Wndows and Office to creating constant revenue, their worries have been limited.
ROTFLMAO. You really should make an effort to educate yourself on a topic before posting.
Yes, Google is making a profit. A HUGE profit. $2.5 Billion in the last quarter.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8273091
Where did you see that this was an asset (as opposed to equity) purchase agreement?
Just curious....
Wouldn't this have to be an asset purchase? I've not seen any mention of Google purchasing MMI's stock. If it is an asset purchase then it's a really expensive one and you'd think that at that price Google would want everything.
I guess time will tell.
[on edit: Google offered Motorola Mobility $40 per share... which most likely means an equity purchase... and, in that case, wouldn't Google get everything... debts, liabilities, assets, cash etc.? ]
Wouldn't this have to be an asset purchase? I've not seen any mention of Google purchasing MMI's stock. If it is an asset purchase then it's a really expensive one and you'd think that at that price Google would want everything.
I guess time will tell.
[on edit: Google offered Motorola Mobility $40 per share... which most likely means an equity purchase... and, in that case, wouldn't Google get everything... debts, liabilities, assets, cash etc.? ]
Yes, that's the way I understood several articles on the subject -- Google was buying MMI, warts and all, and MMI will no longer exist as an independent corporation after the deal is done.
An interesting side effect of the MMI purchase is the effect that it could have on the Oracle-Google litigation regarding Android. This was posted on Asymco:
By: Steven Noyes
My only thought on the Oracle one (and to me, I would see Oracle seeing the new Googrola as a win. Google tried to claim that Android has $0 in value since it gives it away. Oracle can point to Google spending $12.5 billion to protect Android and Android has real monetary value to Google.
http://www.asymco.com/2011/08/17/the...#idc-container
If the poster is correct, then Larry may have stepped in it and undermined his own defense -- and increased the $ amount of the damages, should they loose. AIR, trebel damages are being asked????
...curiouser and curiouser...
Can you point to a section in the purchase agreement that says that Google gets to keep the cash? Oh, wait. You haven't seen the purchase agreement.
Typically, in an asset purchase acquisition like this, the selling company keeps the cash. Only in a stock purchase would the purchasing company normally get the cash.
Okay... so now I've read the agreement.
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1...5807/dex21.htm
It definitely sounds like a stock (equity) purchase agreement.
Sure... there are a lot of things I don't understand; but in this clause...
SECTION 1.03. Effects of the Merger. The Merger shall have the effects set forth herein and in the applicable provisions of the Corporation Law. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, at the Effective Time, all the property, rights, privileges, powers and franchises of the Company and Merger Sub shall vest in the Surviving Corporation, and all debts, liabilities and duties of the Company and Merger Sub shall become the debts, liabilities and duties of the Surviving Corporation, all as provided under the applicable Laws of the State of Delaware.
[on edit: I'm assuming that all the property, rights, privileges, powers and franchises means that Google gets everything... including the cash ]
Apple comes to the convergence between consumer electronics, IT/PC/networking, and mobile data communications as it universally adopts IP broadband as the common venue for products and software. The company has obvious strengths in software, human interface/software, OS development platforms, . Apple has held only a token number of patents and few of importance in wireless or wireless communications specific technologies until recently. Most of the recent bolstering of wireless IPR comes from acquisitions rather than internal development. The Nortel IPR acquisition, led by Apple, and a series of cross licensing with wireless industry titans, has helped Apples achieve a balance between their traditional forte and the wireless centered base of IPR.
Apple without wireless broadband (3.5G-4G) would not have displayed the innovation or explosion in growth. Other areas such as 'Cloud computing' (I prefer Cloud 4G or ICT), is becoming a major factor in Apple and many participants vision of the future. This too ids dependent on wireless connectivity to people. The Cloud without wireless is Steve Job's with a tin can (the iPod, iPad, iPhone) on a string.. Apple had the insights and skills needed to take advantage of WBB better than companies who previously dominated it. However, Apple's business formula participates, doesn't dominate.
I've been involved with dozens of acquisitions. In every single case (as is normal business practice), when a company sells its assets, cash is generally not included.
Well, I've been involved in literally hundreds of acquisitions, major ones I mean. Cash assets were in every case transfered, as is normal business practice in major acquisitions.
Now. it may be that you were involved in the acquisition of your local grocery store or bakery for which it is normal to leave the cash out of the deal.
I think it is time to codify Google's attitude and actions regarding others' IP and technology in general.
Let's call it Googlelogic -- or the Mantra of Mountain View:
• You cannot sue me for what I steal from you because I give it away.
• Even if you sue and win, there should be no damages because what I give away has $0 value.
• I am willing so spend $ Billions to protect my right to give away something of $0 value.
I agree. I always point to Windows Phone 7. Rather than copy Apple's iPhone, they went in a similar direction, but really made it their own. It's not bad... Pretty good actually.
I don't dislike Android. It's a nice OS. I simply have a problem with how it came to be.
+++
WP7, and WebOS, are both based on the same idea, but had real innovation that made them different from iOS. It was too bad they entered very late in the game (otherwise they would have gotten the Verizon Droid push, that jumpstarted Android).
Google, OTOH, realized that the time needed to build something innovative might hurt them irreversibly, so they basically just ripped off iOS.
The NORTEL bid was actually $4.5 billion and pooled together by Apple, Microsoft, RIM, Sony, Ericsson and EMC. It's not clear though if they are paying out equal payments of $750 million each. They beat out Google's sole bid of $900 million.
Google's final bid was closer to $4bn.